O/T: Nibbling on an Apple

On 2013-08-07 02:18:59 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 23:51:47 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Mine are in albums on my iPad. Is that not a file system?

Exactly - but nospam doesn't seem to realise that.

it's not a file system. it's a database.

The database won't work without a file system.

A database is a file system.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/6/2013 4:50 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| All in all, I have to say that I'm pleased with the iPad Mini,
| not for what I purchased it for, but, rather, for the way it has
| proven to help me with every day tasks I've been struggling with
| for several decades.
|
That seems to be the main point. I was out
this past weekend looking at tablets with my
ladyfriend, who thinks that perhaps she should
buy one -- if for nothing else than to stay current.

We looked at Apple and Windows; didn't get to
Android. I was most impressed with the Acer that
had full Win8 for $400. And I could augment it
with bluetooth keyboard and/or mouse if required.
Nice. But then I realized that I was thinking about
how to use a small touch screen as a computer,
when for $400 I could have a real computer. The
strength of tablets is very small size and mobility,
not extensive functionality.

stop trying to pretend a tablet is a laptop. it's not a laptop.

if you want a laptop, get a laptop.

tablets are not laptops. they're tablets.

not everyone needs a laptop. for many tasks, a laptop is overkill.
that's why tablets are so popular. tablets do a bunch of tasks *really*
well, much better than a laptop doing the same tasks.

tablets don't do everything, nor do they have to. for those tasks, get
a laptop.

(The Apple clerk didn't even undersdtand when I
asked whether there was a file system program to
let me store and organize files. Apparently there is,
but he couldn't see the point. He recommended
Dropbox, as though it were an iPad service.

it doesn't meed a user accessible file system. there are apps that
manage that *for* you.

file systems are old school. they're eventually going away for nearly
all users. system administrators or developers might need to get at
individual files, but typical users do not.

this is a concept lost on geeks because geeks want to get under the
hood and screw with ****. normal people don't want to do that. they
want *content* and computer can easily find that for them, *without*
direct file access.

I came away with the same sense I had going in:
A tablet for $50 with a good screen for reading and
a standard USB slot for memory sticks... and the
native ability to read PDF/DOC/HTML/TXT... is something
I would buy, so that I could read long articles from
sites like Wired or Atlantic Monthly on the sofa. In
the meantime, my schedule is not nearly so complex,
nor my email so urgent, that I need a special, portable
machine to handle them.

there are $50 android tablets, but they're absolute junk.

the kindle is slightly more at $70. maybe you should save up a few
dollars and splurge.

Yet I could imagine that for people who, say, travel
a lot and also like to read e-books, but don't actually
do any computer-based work that might require a
laptop, such a device might be ideal.

it's also for people who aren't planning on doing any of what you call
computer based work when they travel. they want to leave that at home.

someone might just want to check email, check news websites, play some
games and read some ebooks, and that's *it*. they don't *need* anything
more. whether it's for a weekend getaway or all the time, a tablet is
ideal. a laptop is clunky.

plus a tablet fits in a jacket pocket. a laptop doesn't, unless you
have unusually large pockets. in fact, just yesterday i saw a young
girl, probably about 9 or 10 years old, pull out an ipad mini from her
purse while walking down the street.

On the other hand, it says something about the
tablet market that they're selling "like hotcakes" while
people are still pleasantly surprised that their tablet
is useful for... something... anything.

they're useful for a lot of stuff, which you'd see if you'd only shed
your closed minded and condescending opinions. they're not for
everyone, nor do they have to be, but they're quite useful.



You're not as hostile as usual. Did you take "be nice" pills recently.

--
PeterN

On 8/7/2013 12:59 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 23:51:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Mine are in albums on my iPad. Is that not a file system?

no. it's a higher level concept.

it's actually a database indexed by content, not a rigid file/folder
structure. one photo can be in multiple albums, something not possible
with a file system.

You have an odd idea of "not possible".

nothing odd about it. i have an understanding of file systems and you
do not.

I suppose what you've said
means something to some people, but I put the same image in several
folders by using "Copy to:".

no, you made a copy. now you have *two* (or more) photos, one in each
folder.

Yes, I understood that from the get-go.

you *cannot* have one photo in more than one folder. it is *not*
possible.

worse, *you* have to manage it. if you change one photo, you then have
to then re-copy them to all of the other folders, assuming you remember
where they all were.

Why would I do that? Perhaps you constantly edit your photos. I
don't. The only time I edit a photo later is when I go back to one I
made a cropped 4" x 6" image from and make a cropped 8" x 10" or
similar. And, I do this from the uncropped original. There's only
one folder where the uncropped original stays.

It sounds like you do a lot of things more complicated than necessary
and you need some computer crutch to allow you to do these things.

Why do you assume other people do things that way? An indexed
database solves a problem that doesn't exist for some.

Don't bother to explain. I don't give a rat's ass if it's a copy of
the same file or an index system accessing the same file. I guess
that makes me a hater of higher level concepts.

translated: you don't want to be proven wrong yet again, so you'll just
start off on the attack.

No, it shows that I understood that from the get-go.

I understand my system. You are a hater of good systems. A systems
basher.

it's the same for music. you can search music by various things, such
as artist, album, genre or title. you can also create playlists with
whatever you want in them. as with photos, one song can be in multiple
playlists (or no playlists).

playlists can also be smart and automatically update themselves based
on rules you define, such as least recently played, rated 4 * or higher
or music from the '60s or some other ruleset. if you play a song, it's
automatically removed from least recently played and if you downrate it
to 3* or less, it will be removed from the 4* or better playlist, all
automatically.

Whoop-de-doo.

whop-de-do right back.

none of that is possible with the file system alone.

I don't have music on my iPad unless it was pre-loaded from the
source. I haven't bothered to look.

Why are you nattering on about music? Who brought that up?


If you said you had folders full of files, nospam would argue that you
had files full of folders.

(Well I guess wither beats binders full of women.)

--
PeterN

On 8/7/2013 1:31 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I suppose what you've said
means something to some people, but I put the same image in several
folders by using "Copy to:".

no, you made a copy. now you have *two* (or more) photos, one in each
folder.

Yes, I understood that from the get-go.

apparently not, based on what you've written.

you *cannot* have one photo in more than one folder. it is *not*
possible.

worse, *you* have to manage it. if you change one photo, you then have
to then re-copy them to all of the other folders, assuming you remember
where they all were.

Why would I do that?

why would you do what? why would you recopy them? because if you change
one the others are now out of sync.

Perhaps you constantly edit your photos. I
don't. The only time I edit a photo later is when I go back to one I
made a cropped 4" x 6" image from and make a cropped 8" x 10" or
similar. And, I do this from the uncropped original. There's only
one folder where the uncropped original stays.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with editing photos.

you really are out to lunch on this.

suppose you go to france and take a photo of your wife in front of the
eiffel tower with a nice sunset. that is three categories right there.
photos in france, photos of your wife and sunset photos. your way would
be to make 3 folders with a copy of the photo in each. if a photo has
multiple people or fits multiple categories, then it's even more
copies. that's insanity.

It sounds like you do a lot of things more complicated than necessary
and you need some computer crutch to allow you to do these things.

nonsense.

it sounds like you're stuck with the limitations that a file system
imparts and don't understand that there are much easier and better ways
to do things as well as being able to do many more things that were not
previously possible.

worse, you think everyone has to do it your way and should not want
anything better or want more features.

the fact that you bought a very capable tablet computer and have yet to
install any apps proves this. you're stuck in your ways and not wiling
to learn anything new.

Why do you assume other people do things that way? An indexed
database solves a problem that doesn't exist for some.

i don't assume anything. however, making things easier is something all
users want. except maybe you.


Do you know his needs? You can't suggest how to make things easier,
unless you understand the user's needs. One size does not fit all.


--
PeterN

On 2013-08-07 06:08:53 -0700, PeterN said:

On 8/6/2013 4:50 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| All in all, I have to say that I'm pleased with the iPad Mini,
| not for what I purchased it for, but, rather, for the way it has
| proven to help me with every day tasks I've been struggling with
| for several decades.
|
That seems to be the main point. I was out
this past weekend looking at tablets with my
ladyfriend, who thinks that perhaps she should
buy one -- if for nothing else than to stay current.

We looked at Apple and Windows; didn't get to
Android. I was most impressed with the Acer that
had full Win8 for $400. And I could augment it
with bluetooth keyboard and/or mouse if required.
Nice. But then I realized that I was thinking about
how to use a small touch screen as a computer,
when for $400 I could have a real computer. The
strength of tablets is very small size and mobility,
not extensive functionality.

stop trying to pretend a tablet is a laptop. it's not a laptop.

if you want a laptop, get a laptop.

tablets are not laptops. they're tablets.

not everyone needs a laptop. for many tasks, a laptop is overkill.
that's why tablets are so popular. tablets do a bunch of tasks *really*
well, much better than a laptop doing the same tasks.

tablets don't do everything, nor do they have to. for those tasks, get
a laptop.

(The Apple clerk didn't even undersdtand when I
asked whether there was a file system program to
let me store and organize files. Apparently there is,
but he couldn't see the point. He recommended
Dropbox, as though it were an iPad service.

it doesn't meed a user accessible file system. there are apps that
manage that *for* you.

file systems are old school. they're eventually going away for nearly
all users. system administrators or developers might need to get at
individual files, but typical users do not.

this is a concept lost on geeks because geeks want to get under the
hood and screw with ****. normal people don't want to do that. they
want *content* and computer can easily find that for them, *without*
direct file access.

I came away with the same sense I had going in:
A tablet for $50 with a good screen for reading and
a standard USB slot for memory sticks... and the
native ability to read PDF/DOC/HTML/TXT... is something
I would buy, so that I could read long articles from
sites like Wired or Atlantic Monthly on the sofa. In
the meantime, my schedule is not nearly so complex,
nor my email so urgent, that I need a special, portable
machine to handle them.

there are $50 android tablets, but they're absolute junk.

the kindle is slightly more at $70. maybe you should save up a few
dollars and splurge.

Yet I could imagine that for people who, say, travel
a lot and also like to read e-books, but don't actually
do any computer-based work that might require a
laptop, such a device might be ideal.

it's also for people who aren't planning on doing any of what you call
computer based work when they travel. they want to leave that at home.

someone might just want to check email, check news websites, play some
games and read some ebooks, and that's *it*. they don't *need* anything
more. whether it's for a weekend getaway or all the time, a tablet is
ideal. a laptop is clunky.

plus a tablet fits in a jacket pocket. a laptop doesn't, unless you
have unusually large pockets. in fact, just yesterday i saw a young
girl, probably about 9 or 10 years old, pull out an ipad mini from her
purse while walking down the street.

On the other hand, it says something about the
tablet market that they're selling "like hotcakes" while
people are still pleasantly surprised that their tablet
is useful for... something... anything.

they're useful for a lot of stuff, which you'd see if you'd only shed
your closed minded and condescending opinions. they're not for
everyone, nor do they have to be, but they're quite useful.



You're not as hostile as usual. Did you take "be nice" pills recently.

He isn't responding to you or Tony.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 8/7/2013 6:24 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Mine are in albums on my iPad. Is that not a file system?

Exactly - but nospam doesn't seem to realise that.

it's not a file system. it's a database.

The database won't work without a file system.

sure it can, but that's not the point.

the point is that the user doesn't need to interact with the file
system anymore. there are much *better* ways to do what they want to
do.

users want to access *content*. where that content is does not matter.
it might not even be on their device.


If the content I need is "what to do when the power goes out," I want it
on my device, so I can access it while I still have battery power.

--
PeterN

On 8/7/2013 1:04 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 06 Aug 2013 23:51:50 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

file systems are old school. they're eventually going away for nearly
all users. system administrators or developers might need to get at
individual files, but typical users do not.

Crap.

definitely not crap. it's progress and can't happen soon enough. file
system access is primitive.

It's your original statement that is crap.

not at all. there's nothing crap about it. it's reality and is
happening *now*, although far too slowly.

You couldn't find your way round my wife's iPad collection of of
photographs unless there was a file system you could follow.
Otherwise, god knows how many thousands of photographs all in one big
heap.

then she's not taking advantage of all of its functionality.

How can you possibly know that?

because you said she has multiple thousands of photos in one big heap.

No he didn't. He said just the opposite. "Unless there was..." is
used to mean "There is". Any fool could figure that out.



But nospam is not just any fool

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

users want to access *content*. where that content is does not matter.
it might not even be on their device.

If the content I need is "what to do when the power goes out," I want it
on my device, so I can access it while I still have battery power.

Do you have any example of such content to share with us, or did you
just make that up to have an argument?

And why is this supposed content on the device that may have the power
go out instead of in a medium that isn't susceptible to that, like...
paper?



--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-08-07 02:18:11 -0700, Sandman said:

In article 2013080622160619790-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

So far, the only thing I'm interested in
doing is having a portable way of displaying my images.

I use the Photo Transfer App & Dropbox to move prepared images from my
desktop to my iPad albums for display.

You ight want to take a look at an app called "Unbound". It's a photo
display app that connects to your Dropbox and you can make specific
folders available offline, so it syncs the folders to the app (i.e. not
to the iPad photo app) and is available offline. Less manual work and
you can manage the content of the folders on your computer and then sync
to your iPad.

I have my entire portfolio set up this way. I have a script on my server
that packages all the image files from my online portfolio:

http://sandman.net/archive/index.php

Into appropriate folders, then I sync that with my FTP client to a
Dropbox folder which is then synced to the iPad with Unbound.

Thanks. "Unbound" looks as if it will be quite useful.
http://www.unboundapp.com/


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2013080706073955640-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

it's not a file system. it's a database.

The database won't work without a file system.

A database is a file system.

Uh, no it isn't.

MySQL is a database, as is SQLite which is what Apple use for most of
their database implementations. They are both a file, or files, that
keep data in a structured way in tables where each table contain fields.
You retrieve the data by querying the database, like such:

select * from images where width 1024 and date '2013-01-13'

Or:

select * from music where rating 3 and artist = 'Beatles'

A file system is data store that keeps track of block devices such as
hard drives and tells you that the file "photo.jpg" resides in block
129347 to 193734 on volume X, and then keeps a set of predefined
metadata associated with the data (such as date created, owner flags and
things like that).

You don't query the file system, you list it. You can't add parameters
to the list that the file system doesn't know anything about.

If you've used Macs you may have heard about Spotlight, a wonderful
system where you can search the files on your computer quickly like this:

kind:music artist:beatles

And you get a list of the files that match your "list" criteria. But the
ironic thing here? That's a database. Spotlight indexes your harddrive
and creates a SQLite database, just like on the iPad that has more
knowledge about your files than does your filesystem.



--
Sandman[.net]